Re: Small Set Theory,Updated.


MoeBlee wrote:
zuhair wrote:
As an example to see what I mean: take for example the empty set { } ,
i.e the set which has no member in it. now using the formula x is
P_defined were P is any Predicate that does't use x.we can define { }
by two predicates .

i) P[y]<-> ~y=y.
ii) P[y]<->(Az(~zey)).

That's already mixed up.

Yes, this is hagman's argument.not mine. but anyhow it is a true
argument.
You cannot understand this because you were not following this subject
from the beginning.
That's why you cannot understand it. Read the subject from the
beginning then you'll understand it.

Zuhair

~y=y
states the condition for y being a MEMBER of the empty set.

Exactly.

Az~zey
states the condition for y BEING the empty set.

Yea, but the definition of x is P_defined leads to this, you cannot
know how, because you didn't follow the subject from its beginning.

MoeBlee

.

Relevant Pages